...I wrote of earlier? Well, the American Bar Association agrees. <blockquote> WASHINGTON, July 23 The American Bar Association said Sunday that President Bush was flouting the Constitution and undermining the rule of law by claiming the power to disregard selected provisions of bills that he signed. In a comprehensive report, a bipartisan 11-member panel of the bar association said Mr. Bush had used such signing statements far more than his predecessors, raising constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws on the ground that they infringed on his prerogatives. These broad assertions of presidential power amount to a line-item veto and improperly deprive Congress of the opportunity to override the veto, the panel said. ...The bar association panel said the use of signing statements in this way was contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers. From the dawn of the Republic, it said, presidents have generally understood that, in the words of George Washington, a president must approve all the parts of a bill, or reject it in toto. - <a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24prexy.html?ei=5088&en=b748a5b2247ab591&ex=1311393600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print>The New York Times</a></blockquote> In addition, Arlan Specter (R-PA) is preparing a bill to sue Chimpy for his use of signing statments. <blockquote>"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor. - <a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060724/ap_on_go_co/signing_statements_1&printer=1;_ylt=Aryo3.QuW0mdP3H62G0B4tqMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE->Associated Press</a></blockquote> Hate to say it, but I will anyways. Told ya so. But this is just the most recent volley in a long running battle between legislative bodies and executive bodies that has been raging since their inception. That being the defining and circumscribing of executive power. In the 17th century, King James II was censured by Parliament for failing to enforce parts of certain laws, and language is included in the English Bill of Rights stating that, <blockquote>The pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.</blockquote> We can easily subsitute "presidential" for "regal", and "Congress" for "Parliament" with regards to Chimpy's use of signing statements.